jump to last post 1-25 of 25 discussions (73 posts)

The richest 1 percent have a great net worth than bottom 90 %

  1. bgamall profile image86
    bgamallposted 5 years ago

    The richest 1 percent have a greater net worth than the bottom 90 percent. If you don't want revolution, this must change. Countries that have this discrepancy are at risk of social unrest.

    Bottom line, if you want peace and a strong country, this MUST change:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/opini … .html?_r=1

    1. OutWest profile image60
      OutWestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Although there are some wealthy people who are corrupt many are just hard working and smart.  Others may be jealous of their wealth.  I do not see the correlation between peace and wealthy people.

      1. bgamall profile image86
        bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Then you have not followed history. Much of the rise in wealth was from ponzi lending schemes and the greatest benefactors of this rise in wealth is the corrupt financial system.

        1. lovemychris profile image79
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly. It was designed and planned. The great heist of America, as they have done in other countries before.

          And, are we not the new cheap labor pool?

          By the time the R gvr's get done, there will BE NO unions, no minimum wage, and no elected people in gvt.
          In other words...NO ability to stand up for your rights against the monied power.

          A corporatocracy totally owned and run by Republicorp. With the Supreme Bagger Court right on their side.

          This is what we got for electing Repubs in 2010......happy?

          1. Cagsil profile image83
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hey LMC, try reading some history of America and it's foundation(the Economy).

            Maybe then, you would see that it is all about "corporate protectionism". It's perpetuated by both sides of the aisle, not just one.

            If you're interested, I wrote a hub on America's Economy and it deals with TRUTH about how politicians refuse to handle it properly, because of greed and ignorance of what is right.

      2. Cagsil profile image83
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        There is not one. And the misunderstanding that there is one, is the distortion perpetuated by many.

    2. Cagsil profile image83
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes it must change and the only basis for change is education of those who completely misunderstand "wealth creation". wink

    3. 70
      logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah unless you were one of the 1%.

    4. nightwork4 profile image59
      nightwork4posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      we let it happen by making it sound so cool when people get wealthy. look at how people act when bill gates is mentioned or the rockefellers, the kennedy's ,the bush's, etc. people wanted capitalism, now go enjoy it.

    5. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This is nonsense.

      Bill Gates and Steven Jobs have MUCH more money than I do, but I don't hate them. I love them. They give me awesome products for a cheap price.

      The only reason to hate people who are richer than you is if they stole the money from you. Most any government worker, welfare recipients, the federal reserve (and just about every bank), and "too big to fail" and bailed out companies fit this profile.

      Aside from this, rich people rock.

    6. Stone Gifts profile image61
      Stone Giftsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You can especially see it when you visit China or Russia

  2. prettydarkhorse profile image62
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    you extrapolate that to the whole world and it is the same data or stat

    Most countries are like that, I don't know in China

    invert the triangle, where the base is tipped over

  3. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    They are not suddenly to all to become socialists.

    1. bgamall profile image86
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The privatization of profits and the socialization of losses is not classic socialism nor is it communism. It is fascism, or corporatism.

      1. Cagsil profile image83
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The "Status Quo" in America is Corporate Protectionism and it needs to stop. Plain and simple.

        1. bgamall profile image86
          bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Totally agree, Cagsil.

        2. brimancandy profile image83
          brimancandyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I agree with you. Our so called elected officials are spending way too much of our tax dollars to protect corporations, not only in the United States, but in other countries as well. Which is part of the reason we are in Iraq and Afganistan, and trying to buddy up to China because of the landslide of the Walmarts and other companies moving there to cash in on their economy, as well as the former countries of the Soviet Union, which have become corporate fair game, and suddenly in America's best interest. Yet, still no crying for the people killing each other in Africa... no US corporations there.

          I tried not to mention mexico, that has become Corporate Americas healing hospital. Hurting? Try the new and improved Mexico and watch your profits soar! Side effects may include...well nothing. other than pissing a lot of American workers off!!

      2. chefsref profile image87
        chefsrefposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly right bg, Fascism  is an economic theory that Mussolini called corporatism. America has become a Fascist state and both political parties have taken part. What we once despised we have embraced with the help of Wall Street and massive amounts of cash paid to control politicians.
        If the far right succeeds in taking away the social programs that protect the poor and elderly they will sow the seeds of their ultimate destruction

  4. 0
    Sherlock221bposted 5 years ago

    I think this has always been the case though, and I doubt it will ever change.  Greed is part of man's nature, and there will always be those who are willing to exploit the poor in order to make themselves richer.  Usually, the poor lack the education, or are just too tired from work to consider revolution.  They are more concerned with putting food on the table or whether they will have a job to go to next week.  If all the social unrest we have seen in the past couple of years as a result of the economic situation has not managed to change things, I can't see what will.  The rich are up and the poor are down.  There is nothing new in that.

  5. bgamall profile image86
    bgamallposted 5 years ago

    If you guys don't understand that the ponzi housing scam was a fraud on the investors and a ponzi scheme against the borrowers and don't develop a righteous indignation, the bankers will do it again and again.

    Speculation will have you paying 5 dollars for gas. Then maybe you will complain. We need to rise up and stop using resources excessively and we need to stop taking out loans except where absolutely necessary.

    This will weaken the cartel. Nothing else will weaken the cartel. Nightly news does not expose the bankers because nightly news is invested in them.

  6. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago


    "Sharpton notes if we simply don't extend the Bush tax cuts, it saves $3.9T over 10 years."

    3.9 trillion. So, which side is it that wants those tax cuts to be made PERMANENT?

    You say corporate protectionism, I say Republicorp.

    From where I sit, At the Present Moment in Time, one side is much, much worse.
    And that includes the Blue-Dog Dems.

    Impeach Thomas, that's a start.
    Then Scalia...he should have been gone when he was found hunting with Cheney.

    It's a small club, and we aint in it. So I don't want to fund their party anymore.

    1. Cagsil profile image83
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It is irrelevant actually, because when they SPEND more than that within 10 years time, then it automatically becomes moot. Which goes to show you the distortion level politicians want to keep citizens at.
      It's not just Republicans. roll

      1. bgamall profile image86
        bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Of course it is not just Republicans. But most Republicans have an even bigger desire to please the big banks and bring back easy money toxic lending. Only mainstreet will suffer. Except for Ron Paul and the Heritage Foundation, the rest of the Republicans want easy money.

  7. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "From where I sit, At the Present Moment in Time, one side is much, much worse."

    It aint the Dems lookin to put in stone the welfare to the top.
    It aint the Dems lookin to get rid of unions and the minimum wage.
    It aint the Dems taking over state gvts by puttin their cronies in place.'

    And it's not Democrats who sit on the Supreme Court while their wives work for a political organization whom you rule on.
    And whose income you didn't register for 6 years.
    And who takes gifts from wealthy donors whose cases you decide.

    Who stands to benefit if the debt ceiling fails.
    Who go to private functions with the Koch Brothers.

    Republicorp...the scourge of America.

  8. TMMason profile image75
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    What is the Marxist re-union thread?

    No Berkeley University auditorium this year?...

    Okay... back to the class warfare... and play nice among yourselves.

    1. Cagsil profile image83
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this


      1. TMMason profile image75
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this


        I knew you would be along... all the best Marxians will be here this evening.

        1. Cagsil profile image83
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Throwing around labels again I see. What else is new. roll

          I guess you and your superstitious beliefs, will no doubt have more meaningless tripe to spill on to the forums.

    2. bgamall profile image86
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Mason there is a Class Warfare, but the ponzi toxic loans came from the very wealthiest class. That is where you are in the dark, buddy.

  9. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Careful-- Marx was Jewish....if you don't like him, you'll be labeled an anti-Semite.

  10. TMMason profile image75
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Actually Marxian is more an umbrella term... as is Leant Leftists... but I figured I would be polite tonight... with the big shin-dig going on and all.

    1. bgamall profile image86
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      We don't have Marxism. In communism the private cronies don't get to keep the profits, The party keeps any profits. But Roubini correctly pointed out that in our system the profits are privatized and the losses are socialized. This is not , nor has it ever been, communism.

      This is not rocket science Mason. I know you can get it if you quit listening to the Birchers and Beck. They can't see the obvious either, because they have a political aim to make it look left wing when it is actually fascistic, and right wing. Communism is left wing. Fascism is not. It is corporatism.

      Do you get it yet Mason? Comprende?

      1. lovemychris profile image79
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you bgamall

        It's a vile ploy. That's how they got elected in 2010....turning the blame on Democrats, when it's the Republibaggers who are gutting America for fun and profit.

      2. TMMason profile image75
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        There are mamy verying degrees of Marxism... for one.

        Two, is I have never argued that the Private Cos. and Wall Street COs... are the Marxist... do you see any fortune 500 in here.... I dont see any.

        I am talking to the crowd who has siezed control of massive amounts of power and wealth in this country by siezing certain institutions and govt positions, those who are trying like hell to make us into a Semi-Socialist European style Govt... more than we already are.

        Those who have to this point stangled our Private sector with regulations and Govt intrusions... and have so recently purchased their way in the door of nationalizism.... get it straight.

        I am not calling, nor have I ever called, the private sector Marxists... I am calling the Leant Leftists who are using the Govt to sieze control of the private sector, Marxists. Thoise who have, and are, managing the decline of the American economy so as to get their dream to come to fruition, while buying us from Wall Street, and selling us to China. Simple... keep up...

        Those who have been incrementally creeping through our Govt for decades, and have finally had the afftect they have sought for so long. They have crippled our energy, crippled our markets and private sector.... and they have had the help of those on Wall Street in the selling of us all. All for a buck and a deluded dream of one world.

        Pretty simple...

        As to the private sector it is rife with greed and arrogance, bred through the sneaky underhanded dealings done with the Socialist/Progressives in our Govt. We have been sold, by the marxists to Wall Street and China... they divied us up between themselves like a stuffed pig on spit.

        So before you give yourself a hemmorhage over me calling wall street Marxist...remember... it is not they I am speaking of.... it is the Leant Left. And yes, I consider the truthers and Alex jones crowd, Leant Left...


        If there are too many players in the game for you to keep track of... maybe you should sit this one out.

        What? Do you not think all the scavengers come to the feast, when the corpse is rotten all the ground?

        Of course they do... this has been the greatest theft of liberty, wealth and power, to have ever happened in the world.

        And it has happened, and is happening, to us.

        My remarks are to the crowd in here... who would show up to class bash... as if theirs had no hand in this.

        And you all need to figure out that it is all side who have screwed us... grow up and stop getting locked in the blame game... there is plenty of blame to go around. Period. Socialist Democrats/ Progressives, all the same... this is a one party system and they have you all bamboozled.

        So grow up and wake up!

        1. bgamall profile image86
          bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, Goldman Sachs men ceased power. It is fascism. When private finance controls government it is NOT COMMUNISM.

          You are wrong about blame to go around. The primary culprits in our financial malaise are the central bankers from Basel 2 and their cronies, the TBTF banks and the shadow banks they supported. The "pesky bankers" are at fault, and you should read Will Rogers and you would understand this, Mason.

          The bankers are willing to piggyback on war too, and that is why the neocons made the bankers a lot richer.

  11. nurin natasha profile image59
    nurin natashaposted 5 years ago


  12. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "If the Top 25 Hedge Fund Managers Paid Taxes Like You and Me, We'd Cut 44 Billion of the National Deficit"

    http://www.alternet.org/story/151479/if … al_deficit

    "We'd get that $44 billion from just 25 people."

    ----UN Believable!!!!

  13. Peter Owen profile image60
    Peter Owenposted 5 years ago

    What system would be better than the one we have, that wouldn't destroy ingenuity and entrepreneurism?

    1. Paraglider profile image89
      Paragliderposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      A system that did not allow privately owned banks to lend money at interest.

      1. Peter Owen profile image60
        Peter Owenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That is not a system, just a restriction. What system works better than Free Capitalism?

        1. Paraglider profile image89
          Paragliderposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          A regulated mixed economy works far better than free capitalism.

      2. Cagsil profile image83
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That would not help.

        1. Paraglider profile image89
          Paragliderposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It's not a complete answer, but it would help, or at least it would have done. It's too late now.

  14. TheSenior profile image61
    TheSeniorposted 5 years ago

    Why must it change - it is not a crime to have wealth - problem is that people just don't want to work to affect that outcome.

    I am striving to make this happen for me, why??? cause I'm sick and tired of being poor and of working for people who don't appreciate me and the abilities I have.

    What I will say is that some of these do not spread their wealth which is their right - others spread their wealth in opening up businesses and employing others - now why cain't these employees of their's recognize that with a little determination that they can take their pay and strive for that positon also instead of complaining about the fact that they arn't rich.

    1. Cagsil profile image83
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hey Senior, because the education system doesn't teach wealth creation. It teaches about subject and shows them how to use them in a "job".

      Nothing in schools teaches wealth creation.

      1. Jed Fisher profile image87
        Jed Fisherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Ha, you mention Wealth Creation. Funny stuff.
        In business school they teach that wealth is relative, and if you take as much of the weath as possible for yourself and cause a collapse that reduces the total amount of weath, you become relatively more wealthy. No need for electricity if you can afford to have slaves fan you when its hot, no need for cars if you can afford to have slaves carry you around on their shoulders. And who needs movies when you can affor to have the greatest actors perform for you, live in your palace?
        All the while, tell them you're doing the world a favor, going green, reducing the population, blah blah blah.
        It's all relative.

        1. Cagsil profile image83
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I am glad you're amused. roll
          Business school? Are you talking about college or public school system? College might teach it, but public schools do not. So, you statement is meaningless to the average person who has no way to go to college.
          Slaves? roll
          In your opinion. My view on it is that people are not truly taught the truest understanding of money, which is one of the major problems. Not to mention, since they are not taught about the truest understanding of money, it leads them to misunderstand their own life, which creates more problems than the average person would ever hope to understand.

          1. TheSenior profile image61
            TheSeniorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Amused - only thing that amuses me is people who are afraid of creating their own wealth.  I was taught in high school that you are supposed to be trained to be good employees and even mostly the same in community college.

            I will never let any teacher tell me how to create wealth unless they have created it first themselves.  Then the problem becomes that schools won't allow those people to teach for they don't have any degrees - so you have a catch 22 or a double edged sword.

            1. Cagsil profile image83
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              If teachers knew how to create wealth and taught it, then public schools wouldn't have a problem with paying teachers, because teachers wouldn't need to earn such a salary that it becomes a detriment to the operation of the said schools they are teaching at to begin with.

              The fact that teachers don't know how to create wealth themselves, show how poorly they are on instructing students.

              The entire education system has too much politics involved. Not to mention, since politics is involved, so is corruption at some level.

              And, no privatization of public schools is not an option. What is really needed and right is honesty. Unfortunately, greed plays too much of a factor, which proves corruption exists within the system.

      2. TheSenior profile image61
        TheSeniorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sooo true, I can remember them teaching us 'how to good employees', but nothing about how to accumulate wealth.

  15. TMMason profile image75
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Taxing the wealthy with higher rates will not resolve the debt... it will simply compound the unemployment problem.

    I am not saying they should or should not pay more... I am saying, it alone will not fix the debt. We have a spending problem.... not a revenue problem.

    Too many takers and not enough givers in this country... and that is the system we have created. It is unsustainable... period.

    ---"Perhaps the answer lies in understanding the dimension of the current financial dilemma and whether taxing the rich really does solve the problem.

    The latest Congressional Budget Office report concludes that the country will average an annual budget deficit close to $750 Billion per year for the next ten years including this year.   Therefore the national debt will rise by nearly $7.5 Trillion dollars to a total debt of over $21.5 Trillion (115% of the nation's projected gross national product) putting the nation into technical insolvency.

    With that figure agreed upon, what would be the impact of raising the taxes rates on those filers with modified taxable income above $200,000.00 per year?   The most recent comprehensive data on income and tax filing was issued by the IRS in October 2010 and is for the 2008 taxable year. 

    http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats … 21,00.html

    For this exercise, a few hard-to-believe assumption must be made: 1) that Congress would apply all additional revenue to the deficit and debt, 2) that no new programs would be initiated, 3) the spending assumptions for items such as ObamaCare, Medicare and Social Security are 100% accurate and 4) there would be no catastrophic natural or man-made disasters.

    In 2008 there were 4,359,000 tax returns filed with modified taxable income (MTI) of $200,000 or above.  The total amount of MTI above $200,000 was $1.189 Trillion.  Using the simplest calculation possible, let us assume the current income tax rate of 35% was increased by a factor of 20%.  The new tax rate of 42% would generate an additional $237 Billion in revenue to the government per year.  If fully applied to the deficit per the CBO, then the deficit would be reduced to $513 Billion per year and the debt would increase by $5.1 Trillion over ten years to a total indebtedness of $18.8 Trillion still 100% of projected GDP.

    If the current top income tax rate would be increased by 40% to a rate of 49%, then theoretically the additional income to the government would increase by $474 Billion per year and reduce the deficit to $276 Billion per year, and the overall debt would go up by $2.8 Trillion over ten years to a total indebtedness of $16.7 Trillion (88% of projected GDP)

    The overall effective tax rate (incl. Medicare, average state income tax and misc income taxes) for those in the highest income category would be 51% (if the Federal rate were increased by 20%) and 57% (if increased by 40%).  This is before the impact of such items as property taxes, excise taxes etc.  The average person would acknowledge that when the overall tax impact on every dollar above $200,000 would be taxed at 55 to 65%+, then the incentive to earn more money would be greatly diminished.

    This phenomenon has been documented by Arthur Laffer and his Laffer Curve which shows that the higher the tax rate the less tax revenue is collected by the government.

    Even in an ideal world, discounting human nature, and with the Congress on their best fiscal behavior in the future, raising taxes on the so-called rich will not solve the country's financial problems.  Raising the rates too high will in fact make matters worse.  It is time to stop listening to the snake oil salesmen in the Democratic Party and their tired class warfare rhetoric and get serious about cutting spending."---

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … he_de.html

    To this point all the Dems want to cut is "projected" spending... not actual... only what they want to spend in the future... and that is BS.

    We live in the real world... cut spending means cut what we spend right now, and in the future.

    1. bgamall profile image86
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't buy that. Unemployment is going up with the tax breaks for the rich.

      And corporations are flush with cash. Taking away personal tax breaks will have nothing to do with this. Small business is just getting snuffed by big business.

  16. 0
    jerrylposted 5 years ago

    Spending is not the problem.  Borrowing is!!!!!
    Under the federal reserve fractional banking debt monetary system, we are forced to borrow in order to have a medium of exchange!

    Every person, business and the government pay for daily operations with M1 money.  This is coin, currency, checkbook or electronic transfer money or credit cards.

    M1 is the only money we are allowed to use to pay our daily expenses.  Every cent in circulation, whether tangible or electronic transfer, is created through the extension of credit from private commercial banks, or in the case of government, it is borrowed on our credit through treasury notes, bills or bonds.

    However, there is never any money created to pay the interest on any of these money creating tactics used by the fed and it's affiliate bankers, therefore we are always creating a debt greater than the debt principle of the loans created!

    If banks are able to create money to loan out of thin air, why can't they create money to spend on needed infrastructure maintenance and new construction, without loaning something they never had, and charging interest on it? Another option is to have the treasury create the money on orders from local communities, through their state government.

    When loans are paid back, that money is erased off the books and is no longer in circulation.  Under the current system, if we don't borrow, no money is created and the system begins an immediate collapse!

    How many jobs would this new system create?  People worry about inflation. If money was spent in, instead of being loaned in, it would last indefinately, because it wouldn't have to be paid back to anyone.  Every dollar created would be matched by productivity.  Any over production of money could be used to pay back social security, the money that congress took from it.
    We could even redo our crumbling power grids in this country.

    It would take some time before we would get our noses above water, but it would be worth a try.  The system we have, has failed miserably. 

    If we adopted this new system, we would have to place slowly increasing reserve requirements on the fed and it's banks, until the new system reaches the point where it could handle the nation's economic needs, then we could shut down the fed, and the banks would have to go back to a fee for service business.

    The decisions on what infrastructure projects are needed, would be made on the local community level, where those decisions belong.

    Undoubtedly there would be some flaws, but the fed res act was amended how many times, and it still doesn't stop the debt building.

    At the very least, the government could try a few test projects.
    What have they got to lose?  They can't figure out where the monies needed to run the government are coming from now.

    1. bgamall profile image86
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Nicely put.

  17. TMMason profile image75
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    I agree Jerry. I do not like the fractional banking myself.

    But borrowing is at its core spending... and we have spent ourselves into the broke house, and borrowing more to spend is not the answer. And that is all Obama wants to do is get another two trillion to use as a stimulus... he has said as much with his inverstment BS.

    1. bgamall profile image86
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, he is like Hoover, and is not doing enough for working people. Claw back all the money earned from phony AAA mortgage bonds and use that money to fund infrastructure. Again, Mason, you don't know what you are talking about. A huge theft from mainstreet and the middle class took place with the housing bubble. It was premeditated and Greenspan was at the center of it in this nation, although it was all through Europe too.

    2. 0
      jerrylposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      TM,  There is nothing we can do about spending unless the power is taken away from the fed, and congress on both sides of the aisle will do nothing until their feet are held to the fire.  Laws have to be changed.

      Unless this happens, the people, businesses and government will be forced to borrow even more, just to keep this ponzi system alive.

      We here in MInnesota have a bill before the legislature to change how money is created, but more importantly, how it gets into circulation.  However, whenever our proposed legislation gets into a committee hearing, the banker's lobby shows up to say it just won't work.  When we ask why, they just repeat the same thing, and then the bought and paid for legislators table our bill.

      You can look up our proposal.  It is Minnesota senate file #65.
      It is called the Minnesota economic recovery act.
      All of the information I have posted on this thread, was what my friends received in answer to letters they sent to the treasury and the fed.
      We as a nation, are financially screwed.  What irks me is that when they crash the system, they will probably try to start the same system all over again. 

      My friends and I figure that in the not too distant future, just servicing the interest on total debt will surpass total gross consumer income.  When that time nears, man will have to choose between paying his taxes, or feeding his family.  At that time, the government will not be able to honor their myriad of contracts with businesses, and the stock market will crash, taking with it all of the IRA's 401K's and pension plans.

      Call your congressman and give em hell!!!!!

      1. TMMason profile image75
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I fully agree... the FED must go.

  18. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "There is nothing we can do about spending unless the power is taken away from the fed,"

    Those who have precipitated this action: Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, Marcy Kaptur, Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders.

    Do you SEE a pattern? One side is much more willing to do something. These are the ones we should vote in, not those who live and die for monied interests!!!

    1. 0
      jerrylposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      LMC, I know that some (very few) politicians have postured on this action, but what is really needed from those mentioned, is a concerted effort to educate the masses about what the fed is doing to this nation.
      I seriously doubt that even 1/2  of 1 percent of our population knows the sinister nature of our monetary system.  They have no idea that they have been throughout their entire lives, and are continuing to be scammed by the bankers.

      I will believe that these men are really trying when I see, on a national level, efforts to educate the masses on the ponzi scheme that is our monetary system.

      It has been our experience here in Minnesota, that the farce is held up equally on both sides of the aisle. They run in fear of the corporate powers.

      Some of my friends, hand delivered this information to every congressman and senator in Washington, in 1993.  Not one politician ever responded to them  Make no mistake, they are bought and paid for.
      We tried to get in to talk with Ron Paul, but he wouldn't see us.  He is stuck on believing that the gold standard is the way to go.  It cannot possibly work.
      We did speak with Kucinich, and he agreed with our ideas to our face, but turned a 180 when back in D.C..
      Of all those you mentioned above, I would have trouble with all of them.
      Bernie Sanders might get a smidgen of credit from me, only because he did make Greenspan sweat a little when his opportunity to ask questions came around.  Greenspan as usual, said a lot, but said nothing.

      1. Moderndayslave profile image59
        Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this
        1. lovemychris profile image79
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So, they "lost" 9 trillion from the fed, they "lost" billions on sept 10, 2001, "lost" billions in bricks of dollar bills in Iraq, and got rich short-selling before 9/11?? Amazing. And we say "No taxes on the rich!"
          The Federal Reserve Bank is a consortium of 9 associated banks with the Rothschilds at the head:
          $1. Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin.
          $2. Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris.
          $3. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy.
          $4. Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam.
          $5. Lehman Brothers of NY.
          $6. Kuhn, Loeb Bank of NY (Now Shearson American Express).
          $7. Goldman, Sachs of NY.
          $8. National Bank of Commerce NY/Morgan Guaranty Trust (J. P. Morgan Bank - Equitable Life - Levi P. Morton are principal shareholders).
          $9. Hanover Trust of NY (William and David Rockefeller & Chase National Bank NY are principal shareholders).
          1791-1811: Rothschilds' First Bank of the United States.
          1816-1836: Rothschilds' Second Bank of the United States.
          1837-1862: Free Banking Era - no formal Central Bank through the efforts of President Andrew Jackson.
          1862-1913: System of National Banks through the efforts of President Andrew Jackson.
          1913-Current: The largest shareholders of the Federal Reserve Bank are the Rothschilds of London holding 57% of the stock which is not available for public trading.
          On May 23 1933, Congressman Louis T. McFadden brought impeachment charges against the members of the Federal Reserve Bank. A smear campaign against McFadden ensued and he was poisoned 3 years later.
          Here are the people that control the government of America:
          1) Ben Shalom Bernanke: Chairman of the Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Term ends 2020.
          2) Donald L. Kohn: Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Term ends 2016.
          3) Randall S. Kroszner: Member of Board of Governors of Federal Reserve.
          4) Frederic S. Mishkin: Member of Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Term ends 2014.
          5) Alan Greenspan: Advisor to Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Recent Chairman.

          The plan of the international banking cabal is to have only 3 central banks in the world: The Federal Reserve Bank, the European Central Bank, and the Central Bank of Japan. All of these banks are headed by the Rothschilds.

          P.S. Hey, we have to be slaves and not complain about it. Otherwise we'd be "anti-Semitic." It's "anti-Semitic" to notice what's happening and who's in charge, and it's "anti-Semitic" to complain about it. The FEMA camps will be full of "anti-Semites" otherwise known as "terrorists."


          1. Moderndayslave profile image59
            Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            When you look back in history, you will see that life is cheap.It may not be cheap to you but it is cheap to the self appointed masters.Money is evil,but an everyday function and greed is a sickness.We are all ants,I prefer to be a noisy one calling on my human family to get educated because there is an invader in our home.One ant is helpless but a massive swarm can remove things once immovable off of this planet, think about it. What I would like to see and what I can actually do are two different things.Just think of all the new friends we can meet in camp.

            1. Cagsil profile image83
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, this would be wrong. Money is a tool, to be understood. Greed is not a sickness, but made to appear as if it is, when it's actually not. I wrote a hub on it.
              This I would agree with, depending on your meaning behind the word "invader" and it's specific use?
              This I would also agree with.
              Improper use of perception would make it appear as if those are two different things, however, they are not.
              Yes, many friends could be made. wink

  19. HattieMattieMae profile image71
    HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago

    Evan you ever been homeless, or in need. I think you have to understand not everyone on welfare is generational welfare, but at the moment more and more people like you losing jobs and situational poverty. They didn't plan it, went through their savings and emergency fun, and because there are no jobs, can not use their degrees. Fortunately they paid taxes just like you and me! If you ever find yourself there by chance in the next few years on an unplanned adventure eat your words! smile

  20. HattieMattieMae profile image71
    HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago

    Better yet instead of reading and squawking and watching television walk yourself down to the human services building, non-profits, and homeless shelters and get a better view of knowing what you're talking about.

  21. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    I would also say it's why they own Hollywood, and the Media...
    Great distractors and controlling of our thoughts, while they do what they do behind the scenes.

    And, we all know that religion was used in olden times as a political force...just as marriages were done to consolidate power.

    I happen to believe the guy who says that Khazars from the Caucaucus Mountain(?) region joined the Judeaic religion as a way to hide, and gain power and control.

    They no more practice Judeaism as they care about Jews.
    AS Jesus pointed out when he came! (allegedly)

    The Brood of Vipers--the Pharisee's, ie The Likud Gvt of today, are not religious leaders, they are treachorous u-surpers. Using Israel as their base of power.

    And the sooner we all recognize it, the better. That is my opinion.

    1. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Just came across this from another person: I am not alone!!!

      "The American idiot is confusing ZIONISM WITH JUDAISM…So the Zionists can use the magic words: “Anti Semitism” every time somebody dare to criticize or expose the Israeli Government “Apartheid” and “Ethnic cleansing” policies and therefore DISCREDIT the messenger and the message.
      98% of Zionists or Settlers who are in control of Israel are Ashkenazi “Jews” descendants of Eastern Europeans from the Khazar Empire who CONVERTED to Judaism n AD 740 and are NOT CONNECTED to the Original Hebrew tribes (Israelites) who were living in and around Palestine, THEY ARE NOT SEMITES,
      Rosenberg, Goldman Goldstein Levin Liberman are NOT Hebrew names they are EASTERN EUROPEAN NAMES..they are descendants of Khazar who moved to Poland Russia Hungary and Russia when Khazaria was destroyed by Gengis Khan They were NEVER IN THE MIDDLE EAST at THE FIRST PLACE AND SHOULD NOT CLAIM….RETURN TO THE “PROMISE LAND” this is a Zionist lie created by Theodore Herzl in 1886 Before that, there was NEVER a concept for a “Jewish Only” State or a Palestinian State because local Jews (real Hebrews not Ashkenazis) and Arabs WERE SHARING THE LAND PEACEFULLY FOR CENTURIES….The Hostilities between Jews and Arabs STARTED with the creation of ZIONISM ( 1886 and got worst after 1947 after the Zionist army LEHI exterminated Palestinian villages like Deir Yassin in April 1948 see Wikipedia or Google)
      ZIONISM IS NOT JUDAISM, the Jewish culture and Religion doesnt NEED ZIONISM TO EXIST
      in the other hand ethnocentric fanatic Zionists NEED to exploit the Jewish population in order to expand their power and domination in the world PRETENDING to fight for “Israel” which is just a tool or stepping stone for their domination (Supported and financed by the Rothschilds)
      To educate yourself on the subject check : http://www.ifamericansknew.org
      Also ALL intelligence reports (CIA and other Agencies) confirm that the country spying the most on the United States IS Israel followed by Communist China. GOOGLE search (or other) the following Title :
      ” Israeli espionage in the United States : 1948 – 2010 ” and see HOW FRIENDLY Israel IS.
      Check Also the attack on the USS Liberty…and the testimony of Americans who survived the Israeli attack and see HOW FRIENDLY Israel is…
      Israel is just Another Foreign Nation (created by force and destruction) and we should deal with Israel the same way we deal with France Italy or any other Nations the “Special” relationship so often mention by our politician is PROPAGANDA GARBAGE….They are NOT MORE FRIENDLY…AS A MATTER OF FACT we should reconsider our BLIND POLICIES….We would be in much better shape
      Financially and oherwise."

  22. TMMason profile image75
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    FEMA camps full of anti-Semites?

    Chris it was... and has always been... the Socialists and Communists who build camps and fill them full of people, and some of you all even cooked 'em.


    How could you even joke about such a thing, after what your side's ideology has done in History. Amazing.

    And since your a Leftist, you will be immune from the camps.

    Till the Communists show up for you, that is... those Communists always kill you Socialists in the end. They know better than to trust anyone who would betray their own, and overthrow their own Govt.

    Then the purges come... Intellectuals (Socialists), Writers, Artists, etc...

    And then of course the Facist in the bunch will remove all the  opposition and grab that centralized power and authority... and God help the commmunists and the people at that point... (Those who have survived to this point.)...

    And guess what?...

    America won't be there to save any of you all, this time... because you all will have killed her.

    A vicious cycle you have on that side of the isle.

  23. Moderndayslave profile image59
    Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago

    Here Mason:
    http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name … p;sid=1062
    FEMA did such a wonderful job in New Orleans didn't they?

    1. TMMason profile image75
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah I have seen this all before.

      As I said it will not be you Leftists in there.

      It will be the Conservstive Right, that is even now being set up by the Mass Media as the evil bad guys.

      I haven't once seen anything about the commies and Leftist unions in the streets, biting fingers off, surrounding a guys house with his son inside... nope you all get away with everything... it will be the Right they go after.

      The tea prty goes out for a picnic and it is made into a racist facist rally... so obvious.

      It is so very obvious.

  24. Moderndayslave profile image59
    Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago

    Maybe we need to forget about Left,Right or Center and worry about being an AMERICAN? What would fix this country Mason,give me your plan,no generalizations either ,be specific,lay it down.

  25. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Right/left is a scam. All are equally peons.